VEG Corp, Inc. v. United States of America

Filing 43

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the matter of VEG Corp, Inc. v. United States of America, case number 2:17-cv-02893-JCM-NJK, be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for want of prosecution. The clerk is instructed to close the case accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:17-cv-02893-JCM-NJK Document 43 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

VEG CORP., INC.,

Case No. 2:17-CV-2893 JCM (NJK)

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is the matter of VEG Corp, Inc. v. United States of America,
case number 2:17-cv-02893-JCM-NJK.

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or

16

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any

17

claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Although this rule only references dismissal upon

18

defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court in Link v. Wabash R. Co. held as follows:

19
20
21
22
23
24

Neither the permissive language of the Rule—which merely
authorizes a motion by the defendant—nor its policy requires us to
conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the power
of courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of
cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or
dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief. The authority of a court
to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been
considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but
by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.

25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962).
The Supreme Court specifically affirmed “the power of courts, acting on their own
initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or

Case 2:17-cv-02893-JCM-NJK Document 43 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 2

1

dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Id. at 630. Thus, Rule 41(b) authorizes district courts

2

to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders or the

3

Rules. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640–43 (9th Cir. 2002).

4

This power is also codified in this court’s local rules. Local Rule 41-1 provides that

5

“[a]ll civil actions that have been pending in this court for more than 270 days without any

6

proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution

7

by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party.” LR 41-1.

8

On July 28, 2020, the court gave notice to plaintiff VEG Corp, Inc., pursuant to Local

9

Rule 41-1, that “[i]f no action is taken in this case within 30 days, the Court will enter an order of

10

dismissal for want of prosecution.” (ECF No. 42). Nonetheless, plaintiff has not appeared or

11

otherwise prosecuted this action.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the matter of VEG Corp,

14

Inc. v. United States of America, case number 2:17-cv-02893-JCM-NJK, be, and the same hereby

15

is, DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

16

The clerk is instructed to close the case accordingly.

17

DATED September 10, 2020.

18
19

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-